Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
TAM In Legal Trouble For Overbooking?  
User currently offline767-300ER From United States of America, joined May 1999, 130 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3862 times:

I recently read in Brazilian news that TAM is going to face legal issues for overbooking. How is this possible? Isnt this a worldwide practice? And Im sure flights in Brazil have always had overbooking practiced. Why is this such an issue now? I know the airports are a mess, but I seriously doubt that it is the cause of overbooking. Anyone have any info?

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJJMNGR From Brazil, joined May 2004, 1018 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3813 times:

What is funny in all this is that there is a law against airlines who practise overbooking but there is no law to protect the airline from those pax that make their bookings and simply do not appear to fly. We are talking about average 15%....

User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11406 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3809 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting 767-300ER (Thread starter):
I recently read in Brazilian news that TAM is going to face legal issues for overbooking. How is this possible? Isnt this a worldwide practice? And Im sure flights in Brazil have always had overbooking practiced. Why is this such an issue now? I know the airports are a mess, but I seriously doubt that it is the cause of overbooking. Anyone have any info?

767-300ER, this is all because of our press. They are trying to find someone as a guilt for the ATC recent problems.
Overbooking is a practice in Brazil (except for Gol) but become a major issue because of the ATC: Passengers now arrive early at the airports, delayed and cancelled flights also forced airlines (mainly Tam) to even overbook some flights.

Main problems faced by Tam:

- ATC problems during October/november
. Due to this, some scheduled maintenance during the night has been postponed because of the delays.
. Last week Tam was forced to ground 6 aircrafts (out of 95) for maintenance.
. Due to some delays, crew work hours many times has been exceeded and not at the expected airport (on a CGH-BSB-FOR-REC flight, the crew was forced to stop at FOR while their replacement is waiting at REC). During 36 hours it produced a major problem to move the staff (also ATC keep in a kind of "strike", controlling less planes).

- Severe whether conditions in their main hub (CGH)
- I.T and network problems in Rio

They overbooked some flights, but at international levels, and remember that in Brazil there is no heavy penalty for no-show, some fares also allow the customer to fly on any further flight.

Yesterday and today seems that everything is in order.

Felipe



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8927 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3694 times:

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 2):
(also ATC keep in a kind of "strike", controlling less planes)

I believe they are called "by the book" strikes.

But as far as I can tell it seems that this particular "problem" is being well managed and is not that big of a deal anymore. . . or am I badly mistaken?

Quoting JJMNGR (Reply 1):
What is funny in all this is that there is a law against airlines who practise overbooking but there is no law to protect the airline from those pax that make their bookings and simply do not appear to fly. We are talking about average 15%....

I think there should be a penalty. Something like if you don't advise the airline before 24 hours of your flight that you will not be able to make it, the airline can charge you a fee. . . maybe in the amount of a non-rev fare for the fligth the guy missed? Sounds fair?

[Edited 2006-12-28 05:47:10]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3608 times:

TAM messed up their booking, that is a fact. My guess would be that up to this year the available capacity was sufficient to reallocate overbooked flights (in fact, TAM and VARIG had a clearing deal AFAIK). Now VARIG is out of the picture for most routes - and chaos ensued. A bad miscalculation by TAM.

The government pounced on them with all claws and teeth - they made themselves the perfect scapegoat for the government's complete mismanagement of the country's ATC.


User currently offlineRootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4186 posts, RR: 41
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3593 times:

Quoting JJMNGR (Reply 1):
What is funny in all this is that there is a law against airlines who practise overbooking but there is no law to protect the airline from those pax that make their bookings and simply do not appear to fly.

but if the flight is already paid for ? isn't there 0 % loss for the airline given the fact they won't refund the ticket ?



A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
User currently offlineBullpitt From Spain, joined Mar 2004, 871 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3545 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
I believe they are called "by the book" strikes.

Hi to be more precise it's called "work to regulation" I think, maybee some of our Anglo friends could correct us.



These are my principles but if you don't like them I have others
User currently offlineAwysBSB From Brazil, joined Sep 2005, 561 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3540 times:

TAM did all that because it knew ANAC would not suspend the concession of an airline which has almost 52% of the domestic market-share.
Passengers are being victims of a tyranny orchestrated by ATC, TAM and other entities against Brazilian federal government, but this is an opportunity to Defence Ministry with ANAC show how coercer they can be with those entities.

[Edited 2006-12-28 14:07:23]

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3536 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
I believe they are called "by the book" strikes.



Quoting Bullpitt (Reply 6):
Hi to be more precise it's called "work to regulation" I think, maybee some of our Anglo friends could correct us.

The common phrase is 'Work to Rule' - ie work exactly to what your contract says your job is, nothing more, nothing less.


User currently offline7LBAC111 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 2566 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3532 times:

Quoting RootsAir (Reply 5):
but if the flight is already paid for ? isn't there 0 % loss for the airline given the fact they won't refund the ticket ?

And if the pax who show up have Fully Flexible and Refundable tickets, the airline lose significant yield.

7L



Debate is what you put on de hook when you want to catch de fish.
User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3440 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
I think there should be a penalty. Something like if you don't advise the airline before 24 hours of your flight that you will not be able to make it, the airline can charge you a fee. . . maybe in the amount of a non-rev fare for the fligth the guy missed? Sounds fair?

However, if you (or your boss) paid for a (fully) refundable and/or flexible ticket I think you've paid enough to cover this penalty...


Quoting 7LBAC111 (Reply 9):
Quoting RootsAir (Reply 5):
but if the flight is already paid for ? isn't there 0 % loss for the airline given the fact they won't refund the ticket ?

And if the pax who show up have Fully Flexible and Refundable tickets, the airline lose significant yield

One can wonder who will be bumped....the one paying $$$$$$ or the low yield pax. I reckon the answer will be the latter.


User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3994 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3429 times:

Quoting JJMNGR (Reply 1):
What is funny in all this is that there is a law against airlines who practise overbooking but there is no law to protect the airline from those pax that make their bookings and simply do not appear to fly. We are talking about average 15%....

Yeah JJ, let's take the liability all the way to the parties responsible. For example, if I book a flight from Curitiba to Sao Paulo to Tokyo first class on JAL for $12000 and TAM screws up my Curitiba to Sao Paulo connection, I'd like to make TAM liable for it, up to and including the damage to my business meetings.


User currently offline7LBAC111 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 2566 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3401 times:

Quoting LJ (Reply 10):
And if the pax who show up have Fully Flexible and Refundable tickets, the airline lose significant yield

One can wonder who will be bumped....the one paying $$$$$$ or the low yield pax. I reckon the answer will be the latter.

Indeed. One would assume that to be the case. But factor in the ultra-frequent business traveller who just happens to travel on restricted fares week in week out. That apparent low yield for that flight can be rounded up to significant yield over the course of a year. Then things like FQTV status need to be considered, along with Corporate deals, commercial importance of pax etc etc. It's never quite so clear cut.



Debate is what you put on de hook when you want to catch de fish.
User currently offlineJrosa From Brazil, joined Jun 2005, 367 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

I heard that during Christmas time TAM sold 1200 seats in excess per day. Therefore, it would be (as it really was) impossible for TAM to fly all passengers holding tickets for those days (Dec. 20 until Dec. 24) even with all its fleet flying 24/7, without a break.

Add to this severe overbooking scenario the several ATC problems (work to rule operations), plus severe weather conditions in the afternoons in CGH, some IT problems impacting TAM's corporate network and a few planes grounded for maintenance and you will have a chaotic Christmas time.

On top of all that, as the cherry of the big mess cake, you have crews reaching their maximum working hours before the stop point where the replacement crew is waiting.

The Brazilian pilots are flying so many hours, that I know some that reached their annual flying hour limit in the beginning of the first week of December and were immediately put on vacations and are not available until January 1st, to fly any plane in case of an unexpected need by the airline.


User currently offlineFMAL From Brazil, joined Jan 2004, 486 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3309 times:

Quoting AwysBSB (Reply 7):
Passengers are being victims of a tyranny orchestrated by ATC, TAM and other entities against Brazilian federal government, but this is an opportunity to Defence Ministry with ANAC show how coercer they can be with those entities.

Are you suggesting that TAM has orchestrated against the Federal Government? This is a government flagrantly pro-TAM, why would they rebel against it? When Varig shut down, you didn't see any FAB planes helping out, did you?

The Defense Ministry and ANAC, a product of the inefficiency that is the Lula Government, have done nothing to prevent or punish TAM. They keep saying they will punish them from stranding thousands of passengers, but nothing happens. What the airlines, and the general public feels, is that they can get away with anything, because ANAC is not the DAC and thus the feeling of impunity is rampant.

This crisis is yet another chapter in the chaos and disaster that is the Lula Government. We have no health care, no schools, no ground transportation (national roads on terrible conditions), no railways, no public security and now, no air travel. Where will it all end?


User currently offline767-300ER From United States of America, joined May 1999, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3240 times:

I understand, but ALL airlines overbook..... Why is it said NOW that airlines are illegally overselling flights. Hasnt this been going on for years? decades?

User currently offlineAwysBSB From Brazil, joined Sep 2005, 561 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3163 times:

Quoting FMAL (Reply 14):
Are you suggesting that TAM has orchestrated against the Federal Government?

No, TAM is just participating in that move; actually, TAM is making use of its oligopoly by testing the society, the aviation authority and the stock market.

Quoting FMAL (Reply 14):
This is a government flagrantly pro-TAM...

It is better to say TAM was hugely favoured by Varig's collapse.

Quoting FMAL (Reply 14):
When Varig shut down, you didn't see any FAB planes helping out, did you?

It was considered FAB help out, but Varig did not accepted that.

Quoting FMAL (Reply 14):
The Defense Ministry and ANAC, a product of the inefficiency that is the Lula Government, have done nothing to prevent or punish TAM. They keep saying they will punish them from stranding thousands of passengers, but nothing happens. What the airlines, and the general public feels, is that they can get away with anything, because ANAC is not the DAC and thus the feeling of impunity is rampant.

No, Defense Ministry and ANAC are products of a more democratic government than FHC's; Lula's Cabinet chief Dilma Rousseff told today an indisputable thing: "Varig was the civil aviation policy during DAC times".

Look, I am not a defender of Lula's government, but we cannot tell things now are worst, if we do not compare the current with the previous governments.
One thing I assure you: disclosure, transparency and press freedom are much better now.

Quoting FMAL (Reply 14):
We have no health care, no schools, no ground transportation (national roads on terrible conditions), no railways, no public security and now, no air travel.

I agree with you on all those points, but Brazilian airlines profits grew a lot this year.

[Edited 2006-12-29 02:23:46]

User currently offlineJrosa From Brazil, joined Jun 2005, 367 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3134 times:

Quoting AwysBSB (Reply 16):
One thing I assure you: disclosure, transparency and press freedom are much better now

You must be kidding! Where do you live? Oh, I see, you live in Fantasy Land, the capital o Brazil...

Come on, give me a break, this Government does not deserve to be called a government, it is destroying all Brazilian Institutions and hitting the Brazilian Society in such a way that we will suffer from its nefarious effects for decades.

ANAC could not be controlling a fleet of two inter-municipal buses, what about the Brazilian Civil Aviation Industry. (Please get the videotapes of all ANAC's press conferences following the Gol crash, all were a bad taste joke!)

This Minister of Defense is the best example of the high incompetence that is reigning in the Brazilian Government, he does not know anything (as well as President Lula) and he is always caught by surprise by the chaos in the airline industry (as well as President Lula who is always caught by surprise by the corruption of very close government members or by the suddenly and unexpected wealth and prosperity of his son "Lulinha" and his business).

By the way,

Quoting AwysBSB (Reply 16):
disclosure, transparency and press freedom

are not much better now. The Government, the Minister of Defense, the Air Force and ANAC all knew just a couple of hours after the Gol B738 disappeared from the radar screen that it had crashed and all passengers and crew perished. However, the Government, the Minister of Defense, the Air Force and ANAC took TWO DAYS, I would like to repeat - TWO DAYS! - to confirm that the aircraft crashed and all were dead.

The Minister of Defense already confirmed in an interview to AeroMagazine that all the authorities involved had the information about the crash and the death of all passengers and crew of Gol's aircraft, but they preferred to hold this information for two days. (Remember that the presidential election took place in the same weekend as the Gol crash).

This post is too big to continue, but if I can make you rethink your thoughts I will have made my day.

Cheers,

JC


User currently offlineAwysBSB From Brazil, joined Sep 2005, 561 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3100 times:

Quoting Jrosa (Reply 17):

Jrosa, I did not tell that disclosure, transparency and press freedom are being perfect, I told they are much bettER now!
You had no reason to be offensive and make a judgement about the place I live.
Anyway, a curious aspect of your reply is that you did not even mention FHC's government.
Disclosure, transparency and press freedom are indeed much better now than four years ago, and I ask you how long FHC people would take to unveil obtained information about a similar crash.
I will not comment the other hot-blooded thinkings there are in your reply, and I suggest you to post smaller replies to avoid showing narrow points of view.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Does The X In LAX Stand For? posted Sun Dec 10 2006 13:31:25 by RootsAir
SRB: Walk-In Cabin Simulators For Travel Agents posted Fri Oct 27 2006 20:16:31 by Leelaw
AZ Has FCO-LAX And FCO-YUL In Its Sights For 2007 posted Fri Oct 6 2006 00:18:24 by Nycfly75
WN In The Market For Used 737-700'sl posted Sat Jul 22 2006 00:01:04 by Dbba
Drive-Thru Check In - This Is For Real.... posted Wed Jul 19 2006 04:31:44 by 'Longreach'
Top Eight Airlines In Operating Revenue For 2005. posted Mon Jul 17 2006 03:43:20 by BOE773
Austrian In Financial Trouble? posted Fri May 26 2006 23:49:54 by RJ100
Iberworld In The Race For 5 A350s posted Sat May 6 2006 14:37:27 by FCKC
BA Pilot 120 Days In The Nick For Drunkflying posted Tue Mar 28 2006 14:40:42 by 747400F
Why Is Delta In Financial Trouble? posted Fri Mar 24 2006 20:55:06 by FantasticFlyer